Sherrod's going to Sue Breitbart...

[DiveCon]

How do you figure? Show the results.

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Show the results.

Nevermind, I will. You're wrong.

glbtq >> social sciences >> New Right

that link is nothing but an oped
it PROVES NOTHING

FAIL

 

[ConHog]

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Show the results.

Nevermind, I will. You're wrong.

glbtq >> social sciences >> New Right

that link is nothing but an oped
it PROVES NOTHING

FAIL

Fail is Maggie's specialty.

 

[bodecea]

How do you figure? Show the results.

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

A million Obama voters here made gay marriage illegal? Link proving that please....and btw, for 18,000 of us gay couples, it's still very much legal.

 

[asterism]

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

A million Obama voters here made gay marriage illegal? Link proving that please....and btw, for 18,000 of us gay couples, it's still very much legal.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf

Don't pretend like you didn't know this.

 

[mal]

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

A million Obama voters here made gay marriage illegal? Link proving that please....and btw, for 18,000 of us gay couples, it's still very much legal.

Not Recognized...

And even if it were, it will NEVER be Truly Equal to what Creates us...



peace...

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you figure? Show the results.

Obama is not anti-gay in general, as most Republicans/Conservatives are (other than those who secretly practice it, that is). The fact that he opposes gay "marriage" is a moot point. There is nothing in the Constitution that discusses marriage as part of the equal opportunity equation.

No results to show, so you then make a baseless accusation.

Obama could end DADT by Executive Order this minute if he wanted to. Obama could treat DOMA the same way he treats immigration and black panther voter intimidation. Instead, his DOJ argues in favor of DOMA and DADT is still used as a political wedge.

The self-deception of the LGBT community on this issue is astounding.

Gosh, I'll bet your fun to talk to in person, using so many acronyms and all. Twould be hard to keep up.

First, I made no "accusation" that I can see.

Second, I'm not getting your point at all, as it relates to the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, folks), because it is unenforceable.

Last, the "gay" situation in this country is hardly a "wedge" issue. It's one that will continue to be controversial for decades, not just this one.

 

[MaggieMae]

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Show the results.

Nevermind, I will. You're wrong.

glbtq >> social sciences >> New Right

that link is nothing but an oped
it PROVES NOTHING

FAIL

Point to any misinformation then, and provide an accurate link for the claim (can't recall who made it) that Reagan did "more for gays than any Dem" (paraphrased). I can live with that, if you can find it. But I sure couldn't. I didn't make the claim, so it's up to you to prove it's truth.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you figure? Show the results.

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

And you seriously believe that the JUSTSAYNO Republicans would E.V.E.R go along with a proposed bill like that? Uh huh... Shit, they won't even support tax breaks for small businesses. Imagine that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Show the results.

Nevermind, I will. You're wrong.

glbtq >> social sciences >> New Right

that link is nothing but an oped
it PROVES NOTHING

FAIL

Fail is Maggie's specialty.

Off the cuff or you got some examples? I'm curious.

 

[ConHog]

no shit
the dems were at the helm for over 50 years prior to 1994
yet they had more progress in the 80's than the 50 years of democratic dominance

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

And you seriously believe that the JUSTSAYNO Republicans would E.V.E.R go along with a proposed bill like that? Uh huh... Shit, they won't even support tax breaks for small businesses. Imagine that.

Oh my, vote against a bill which violates your principles or more importantly the principles of your constituents? There's a concept Democrats don't seem to understand here lately.

 

[MaggieMae]

Opinion pieces will be touted as authoritative histories, but the facts don't lie.

The GLBT community said that Obama was going to legalize gay marriage and end DADT. So far nothing. The irony of course is that gay marriage is illegal in California now, thanks the over a million Obama voters there.

And you seriously believe that the JUSTSAYNO Republicans would E.V.E.R go along with a proposed bill like that? Uh huh... Shit, they won't even support tax breaks for small businesses. Imagine that.

Oh my, vote against a bill which violates your principles or more importantly the principles of your constituents? There's a concept Democrats don't seem to understand here lately.

WTF?

If business leaders would get off their asses and inject some of that $3 trillion they're sitting on back into the economy, more tax incentives to help the cash-strapped smaller businesses survive wouldn't be necessary.

 

[DiveCon]

Show the results.

Nevermind, I will. You're wrong.

glbtq >> social sciences >> New Right

that link is nothing but an oped
it PROVES NOTHING

FAIL

Point to any misinformation then, and provide an accurate link for the claim (can't recall who made it) that Reagan did "more for gays than any Dem" (paraphrased). I can live with that, if you can find it. But I sure couldn't. I didn't make the claim, so it's up to you to prove it's truth.

ah, you read my post incorreectly
i said they made more gains during the 80's
i didnt say anything about Reagan being the one that made those gains possible

 

[mal]

And you seriously believe that the JUSTSAYNO Republicans would E.V.E.R go along with a proposed bill like that? Uh huh... Shit, they won't even support tax breaks for small businesses. Imagine that.

Oh my, vote against a bill which violates your principles or more importantly the principles of your constituents? There's a concept Democrats don't seem to understand here lately.

WTF?

If business leaders would get off their asses and inject some of that $3 trillion they're sitting on back into the economy, more tax incentives to help the cash-strapped smaller businesses survive wouldn't be necessary.

The Government can NOT Create Economy Growing Jobs...

If they are Paying Salaries they are NOT Taking in Tax Revenue...

The Fed needs to get the FUCK out of our Pockets, let the Adjustment happen Naturally and let us get back to Honestly Creating Jobs...



peace...

 

[Father Time]

What are her damages?

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

 

[Father Time]

It figures the lefties would be ALL FOR THIS.

They hate that FREE SPEECH stuff.

So you think spreading lies should be covered under free speech?

 

[Father Time]

Oh boy, now Maybe Palin can go after all the bloggers and even the Lamestream media for the damage they have caused her.

I say we go GET EM.

Palin is a public figure.


She'll never sue cause she knows she'd lose.

Palin is a private citizen.

That doesn't mean she's not a public figure.

Glen Beck, Jon Stewart, Tom Cruise, Tiger Woods all private citizens, and yet all qualify as public figures.

 

[manifold]

What are her damages?

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

 

[Father Time]

What are her damages?

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

 

[DiveCon]

What are her damages?

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

what lies did he spread?

this is why its going to be so hard for her to prove damages

 

[DiveCon]

He spread obvious lies with malicious intent. Is that not slander/libel?

lies?

for it to be lies, he would have had to show her saying something she didn't say.



pssst: he didn't.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot, he just took things out of context to slander her and make it seem like she meant something she didn't

Such a huge difference you got there

But fine if it makes you feel better he was being completely dishonest and sought to wreck her reputation through the dishonesty. Is that still not libel/slander/defamation?

no, it isnt
but that will be up to a court to decide if she follows through and sues